The Selfish Nature Of All Actions

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Billy

I guess its' almost a threadjack to start talking about what's "good." For the Eudaimonist or Randroid, selfish IS good [Greed is good].

For the Deontologist, selfish is bad.

Some people are stuck wearing worldview lenses that prevents them from framing any action as other-than-selfish.

Obviously. Since "for the Randroid" selfishness is good means only that the Randroid believes "selfishness is good". But why would that make any difference?

If the Randroid really thinks that usurping something she is not entitled to is what she likes to do, then she is wrong. Why should it matter what the Randroid believes? The question is whether she is right when she believes that.

[Didymos Thomas]

kennethamy - You are right. But, when we ask 'are people basically good', even when someone acts badly, whatever that is, if they think that that bad act was good, they can still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

kennethamy - You are right. But, when we ask 'are people basically good', even when someone acts badly, whatever that is, if they think that that bad act was good, they can still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

The actor, Will Smith, recently got into trouble for saying that he thought that even Hitler, evil as he was, did not get up in the morning with the intention of doing evil. Even he did not think of himself as an evil person. And, that's probably true. In his epic, Paradise Lost, John Milton has Satan say, "Evil, be thou my good". Of course, that Hitler did not think of himself as evil does nothing to show that he was not evil, and did not do evil things. No one is basically good because he believes he is good.

[Didymos Thomas]

No one is basically good because he believes he is good.

That's not my claim. I'm arguing that people can do evil things, and still be basically good, which I have equated to wanting to do good.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

That's not my claim. I'm arguing that people can do evil things, and still be basically good, which I have equated to wanting to do good.

It has been said that the path to hell is paved with good intentions. And, even having good motives doesn't guarantee that what you do will have good consequences. I suppose that wanting to do good is a good start, but it cannot be all there need be. Besides, as I am sure you know, many times when people say they want to do good, it turns out that what they want is to do good for themselves.

[Didymos Thomas]

I've never contested any of that.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Desire is the cause of action.

Desire cannot be anything but self-involved.

All action is selfish.

What if a person desires to sacrifice himself?

Or more importantly, what if a person does not desire to do an action, but nevertheless he does it, not because he wants to, but because it is his duty to do it. Suppose I do not want to visit my sick aunt in the hospital, but I do it anyway because I feel a family obligation?

[Harby]

Oh yes, cause Good is something set in stone by humanity...

Lets not go too far from the subject, lets even simplify it. Lets observe it biologically...
Why does any organism have to perform any action? Cause it is either in a bad situation currently, or would be in a better one if it performs the action (eat, move...). Thus, an action occurs only when the organism benefits from it.

I don't think just cause we have a well developed brain we can break such simple and logical laws. I also don't think that helping yourself in whatever way you think is best, whether it is achieved by doing it directly or helping others, is in any way bad. It is only natural that an organism's primary concern is itself, hell thats how evolution works. If every organism thought about the other's well being, they'd try to die easier.

[Billy]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

If the Randroid really thinks that usurping something she is not entitled to is what she likes to do, then she is wrong. Why should it matter what the Randroid believes? The question is whether she is right when she believes that.

First, a Randroid would never usurp anything she is not entitled to (and would believe it wrong to do so). Their Greed is Good mentality means they can have as much as they earn.

And Thomas: You are saying: If I think that the world would be better off without philosophers, and systematically rid the world of philosophers (and people who frequent this forum) I could still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

And if you believe that, you are an Intellectualist, not a Voluntarist.

Billy

[Didymos Thomas]

And Thomas: You are saying: If I think that the world would be better off without philosophers, and systematically rid the world of philosophers (and people who frequent this forum) I could still be basically a good person - a person interested in doing good.

And if you believe that, you are an Intellectualist, not a Voluntarist.

If you believe that you are unnecessarily oversimplyfying the issues. More importantly, even if you are right, so what?